Search
Search results
Dead of Night
6.0
Rate It
Book
BERLIN. JANUARY 1940. After Germany's invasion of Poland, the world is holding its breath and...
Murder at Morrington Hall
8.0
Rate It
Book
Stella Kendrick is an all-American heiress who can’t be tamed. But when the lively aspiring equine...
A Beautiful Lie (Birth of a Sin #1)
Book
Could the love between a Sinner and a Saint only end in flames? Ira owned the city. As the head...
Adult Dark Mafia Romance
The Empire's Bladesmen: Forbidden Relics
10.0
Rate It
Book
Captain Shao Lian, a battle-hardened veteran of the Ming Dynasty’s imperial army, had become a...
historical fiction historical fantasy
Cozy Up to Christmas
5.0
Rate It
Book
A man still in hiding. A Christmas heist. This is no time for fruitcake. Ed Belmont works in a...
The Resurrectionist
Book
It's 1820, and the physicians of London are on fire to unlock the secrets of human anatomy, some...
Historical Fiction Gothic Horror
Malibu Burning
8.0
Rate It
Book
For a professional criminal and a relentless arson investigator, fear and revenge spread like...
Darren (1599 KP) rated Anti-Social (2015) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: Anti-Social starts as we meet street artist Dee (Sulkin), his model girlfriend Kirsten (Markle) and his armed robber brother Marcus (Myers) who has been making the headlines for all the wrong reasons now. Dee is about to be given motivation from Philip (Berkel) who sees his potential as an artist, while Marcus is getting deeper into the world of crime.
Dee is given the chance to escape the rough streets of crime, only to find himself being caught in the middle of the drug war his brother has started in the streets of London.
Thoughts on Anti-Social
Characters – Dee is a street artist in London, think of him like the Banksy of the local era. His art work has grabbed the attention of many with his big opportunity coming his way, when his brother gets into trouble, he is forced to balance his own future for his brother’s. Marcus is part of an armed robbery gang that are terrorising London, he has rivals from both sides of the law which has put him in the middle of a drug war, he never asks his brother to help him. Kirsten is the model girlfriend of Dee’s, she is an American that isn’t used to the world Dee is from, she doesn’t do much else other than support Dee. Philip is the man from the art world that could easily make Dee’s life better and is willing to make this happen.
Performances – Gregg Sulkin in the leading role is solid enough, we see his difficult life decision being made well enough, though he does lack that true charisma for a leading role. Meghan Markle is the biggest draw for this film now because of her royal status, only she is completely wasted here, given next to nothing to do. Josh Myers gives us a character which only leaves us hating his character, this is something you will see from nearly all of the criminal side of this film.
Story – The story here follows two brothers whose lives are going in very different directions only for the one that is about to escape, needing to return to criminal world where he must make up for his brother’s error. The way this story is told feels very messy, the idea that the street artist getting a bring break is simple and effective along with the idea that he could be made to make a decision about his future. It is the time spent with the criminal brother, we gain no sympathy for him or his crew, we learn nothing about why they are committing these crimes doesn’t help. The number of gangs also isn’t shown in anyway to make us truly understand the world we are living in and while the final act does have tension, it seems to come from the wrong reasoning.
Crime – The crime world we enter in this film is gangs and robbers, we focus on one young man about to leave this world, who gets dragged back into it after his brother’s action, it shows how in London people are willing to just commit crimes for the fun of it.
Settings – The film is set in London and shows us just where the criminals will act to try and make a living from hurting other people.
Scene of the Movie – The airport.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No sympathy for the criminals.
Final Thoughts – This is a messy crime movie which only ends up making you not care about the characters like it should.
Overall: Messy and drags along.
Dee is given the chance to escape the rough streets of crime, only to find himself being caught in the middle of the drug war his brother has started in the streets of London.
Thoughts on Anti-Social
Characters – Dee is a street artist in London, think of him like the Banksy of the local era. His art work has grabbed the attention of many with his big opportunity coming his way, when his brother gets into trouble, he is forced to balance his own future for his brother’s. Marcus is part of an armed robbery gang that are terrorising London, he has rivals from both sides of the law which has put him in the middle of a drug war, he never asks his brother to help him. Kirsten is the model girlfriend of Dee’s, she is an American that isn’t used to the world Dee is from, she doesn’t do much else other than support Dee. Philip is the man from the art world that could easily make Dee’s life better and is willing to make this happen.
Performances – Gregg Sulkin in the leading role is solid enough, we see his difficult life decision being made well enough, though he does lack that true charisma for a leading role. Meghan Markle is the biggest draw for this film now because of her royal status, only she is completely wasted here, given next to nothing to do. Josh Myers gives us a character which only leaves us hating his character, this is something you will see from nearly all of the criminal side of this film.
Story – The story here follows two brothers whose lives are going in very different directions only for the one that is about to escape, needing to return to criminal world where he must make up for his brother’s error. The way this story is told feels very messy, the idea that the street artist getting a bring break is simple and effective along with the idea that he could be made to make a decision about his future. It is the time spent with the criminal brother, we gain no sympathy for him or his crew, we learn nothing about why they are committing these crimes doesn’t help. The number of gangs also isn’t shown in anyway to make us truly understand the world we are living in and while the final act does have tension, it seems to come from the wrong reasoning.
Crime – The crime world we enter in this film is gangs and robbers, we focus on one young man about to leave this world, who gets dragged back into it after his brother’s action, it shows how in London people are willing to just commit crimes for the fun of it.
Settings – The film is set in London and shows us just where the criminals will act to try and make a living from hurting other people.
Scene of the Movie – The airport.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No sympathy for the criminals.
Final Thoughts – This is a messy crime movie which only ends up making you not care about the characters like it should.
Overall: Messy and drags along.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 1 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
The phenomenon of “true crime” as entertainment is disturbing. What we are saying when we subscribe to watch these compellingly morbid shows is that, of course, we don’t “enjoy” or condone the crimes themselves. But, we do increasingly expect that without the grotesque detail of primary crime scene evidence, documented visually, we can switch over to another show that will give us our macabre kick. So, it is a dangerous precedent to say that without that factor we won’t engage.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I have to admit, I knew nothing about The Man from U.N.C.L.E going into the movie, other than it was based on a TV show from the 60’s. It had flown under my radar for most of the year, overshadowed by highly-anticipated titles with colons, i.e., Avengers: Age of Ultron, Mad Max: Fury Road, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. When the screener was scheduled I was actually tempted to assign it to another reviewer. Then I watched the trailer and saw Henry Cavill (Superman) was one of the stars. At the risk of sounding shallow, that changed my mind.
As we waited for the movie to start, the Man from U.N.C.L.E soundtrack played through the theater’s sound system, transporting me to a Mad Men mindset, which helped as the movie backdrop is set in the early 1960’s period of the Cold War. We’re introduced first to Napoleon Solo, a CIA agent Cavill plays with amusing James Bond suave with an old-time movie accent. (Officially, I believe it’s called a Transatlantic accent.) He’s paired with Armie Hammer’s Illya Kuryakin, a KGB agent on a joint mission to stop a mysterious international criminal organization. To accomplish that, they need the cooperation of Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander), the abandoned daughter of a German scientist, who is their key to infiltrating the criminal organization.
As you can guess, all the spy movie cliches can be found in Man from U.N.C.L.E. from the debonair womanizing agent, menacing foreigners, the femme fatale, the elaborate schemes that are executed smoothly, explanatory monologues, convenient gadgets, et al – just a vintage low tech, high glam version of spy movies you may have seen of late.
I’m actually glad I went in without any expectations. Guy Ritchie turned a pretty simple, straightforward plot into an intricate,, slightly off-kilter caper, with touches of his trademark storytelling from various perspectives. I enjoyed the subtle vying for supremacy the uneasy truce between Solo and Illya created, and while he’s not as dashing as Cavill, Hammer had great chemistry with Vikander.
This year has been quite the year for spy movies. U.N.C.L.E. is not the action thriller that Mission Impossible is, it’s also far from the campy shocker that Kingsmen was, nor is it as outrageously funny as Spy, but as spy movies go, U.N.C.L.E fits smoothly and oddly comfortably in that fold.
As we waited for the movie to start, the Man from U.N.C.L.E soundtrack played through the theater’s sound system, transporting me to a Mad Men mindset, which helped as the movie backdrop is set in the early 1960’s period of the Cold War. We’re introduced first to Napoleon Solo, a CIA agent Cavill plays with amusing James Bond suave with an old-time movie accent. (Officially, I believe it’s called a Transatlantic accent.) He’s paired with Armie Hammer’s Illya Kuryakin, a KGB agent on a joint mission to stop a mysterious international criminal organization. To accomplish that, they need the cooperation of Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander), the abandoned daughter of a German scientist, who is their key to infiltrating the criminal organization.
As you can guess, all the spy movie cliches can be found in Man from U.N.C.L.E. from the debonair womanizing agent, menacing foreigners, the femme fatale, the elaborate schemes that are executed smoothly, explanatory monologues, convenient gadgets, et al – just a vintage low tech, high glam version of spy movies you may have seen of late.
I’m actually glad I went in without any expectations. Guy Ritchie turned a pretty simple, straightforward plot into an intricate,, slightly off-kilter caper, with touches of his trademark storytelling from various perspectives. I enjoyed the subtle vying for supremacy the uneasy truce between Solo and Illya created, and while he’s not as dashing as Cavill, Hammer had great chemistry with Vikander.
This year has been quite the year for spy movies. U.N.C.L.E. is not the action thriller that Mission Impossible is, it’s also far from the campy shocker that Kingsmen was, nor is it as outrageously funny as Spy, but as spy movies go, U.N.C.L.E fits smoothly and oddly comfortably in that fold.